Geoffrey West - Do General Principles Govern All Science?
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- Are there ‘general principles’ that encompass all sciences, which have explanatory strength from physics to biology? Could such general principles even explain actions and activities beyond the physical and biological sciences, such as in psychology, sociology and economics? What would such commonalities mean about our world and about us?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on complexity and emergence: closertotruth....
Geoffrey West is a British theoretical physicist, former president and distinguished professor of the Santa Fe Institute. He is one of the leading scientists working on a scientific model of cities. West received his BA from Cambridge University in 1961 and his doctorate from Stanford University in 1966, where he returned in 1970 to become a member of the faculty.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Geoffrey West's ideas are hugely important, & I've referenced his book (Scale, 2017) in my own work. But his perspective, at least as expressed here, continues to emphasize a physicalist-systems-theory narrative. Phenomenological/ontological questions must surely come into play at subatomic levels, & here's why. Cube-root scaling. The smaller an object, the less constrained it is by classical (Newtonian) physics - it's why insects with long legs are, nonetheless, still able to lift many times their weight. Released from their classical (Newtonian) constraints, subatomic particles must take their cues for behavior (their physical/chemical properties) from the contexts in which they find themselves. In this way, the astonishingly complex dynamics playing out at the inter/intra cellular levels can make much more sense. Tononi's integrated information theory & Smolin's references to Peirce set the stage for top-down causation, with "knowing how to be" extended to the subatomic domain. Top-down causation without God. No souls, no fairies or angel-dust, no woo.
This is life as we know it here on earth. We are all made of cells that don't really vary that much from one organism to another. It is difficult for us to appreciate how much different things could be when we discover life somewhere else in our universe. It is simply beyond our imagination how much different other life forms could be from what we understand. I would imagine the functionality of their systems will be much different from ours. We are in for an unimaginably great treat when we finally discover life from other worlds, which we surely will someday.
I’ll be very surprised if it’s not dna based
If it works...it works.
The varaiable is adaptation. Assuming adaptation is generally systemic, then one would suspect broad spplication of natural laws.
I stumbled over his point years ago working some RF signal processing Near / Far issues. occurred to me it rhymed with real estate, project management & similar aspects in human experience. & it also reminded me that there is a ginormous (technical term) gap between the recognition of a generalizable physics-based principle and its suitable (or safe) application in the human dimension. eugenics jumped to mind... lately AI is The Next Big Thing. in the last few hundred years, humanity has been in quite the rush to apply all kinds of theories to all kinds of practices. heck of an experiment we're running... not clear wisdom is keeping up, relatively speaking.
8:14 GW: _“Complex adaptive systems … express … simplicity [due to the] mathematical properties of networks.”_ What a wonderful interview! The only thing item in physics that seems to ignore networking is the all-encompassing emptiness of space itself.
Of course, that too could be expressed as a network if space is nothing more than an illusion created by a fractal network of multi-scale matter-to-matter separation metrics. To us, such a hierarchy of mass-dependent separations would likely resemble, and perhaps be identical to, how gravity binds diversely sized collections of matter within the universe.
Wouldn't it be amusing if the unexpectedly filamentary structure of the universe had nothing to do with dark matter, but everything to do with how large these matter-to-matter separation relations can grow before they lose the ability to emulate empty 3D space and begin fraying into lower-dimensional sheets, strands, and islands that no longer follow GR as precisely as smaller collections?
(a PDF copy of this 2023-05-17 comment is available at sarxiv dot org slash apa)
This is understandable in terms of statistics. When the average over a large number converges to a specific value/relationship, we notice it as a 'smiple' outcome.
scaling--he's right and amazingly the same principles apply to business
The law of objectivity and subjectivity
Coarse-grain bulk behaviour--astonishing!
Does our universe deterministic? Or not ? Now first Newtonian physics and then Einstien's relativity show that our universe is deterministic as well as we are also bound by physical laws, so the consequence is we have no free will but as physics progress we see opposite of Newtonian physics we see observer's effect on physical laws that change our view dramatically, now the question arrises what is conciousness.? What is life ? Who is observer? Mystery continues.......
If you do an experiment over and over, you will always get the same result. This demonstrates that we live in a universe that features reliable causation. Living things use reliable causation to counteract entropy and move through the world with knowledge and intention, ie. free will. What evidence is there for determinism?
Both determinism and Free Will exists
@@xenphoton5833 Determinism is a philosophical concept and has nothing to do with science. There is no empirical evidence for any claim of determinism. Only reliable causation is demonstrable.
@@caricue right. I see determinism as well as entropy as subjectively applied phenomena
Those principles comes from human’s self-awareness and observation of behaviour external to them such as paying attention to the Cosmos and its manifestation. This principles are core manifestation, not absolutes, hence the variability and adaptability of Nature.
amazing insights 👏
One plus One equals two,
Those things we know are few,
Complexity theory's neat,
The ideas it posits sweet,
It's Pareto that tells us so.
3:6:9 Quantum Harmonics for the Win!
Quantum Implosion Vortex Spirit Science… (3:6:9 Quantum Matrix)
108x5x345.6= 186,624 (Speed of Light)…
Is great video. These apparently different beings: a mouse upscaled is like the whale. The human body is like a city. Natures of things too are intruging - are they prior to the bilogical make up, thus Soul is inquired( the blueprint).
Why do we insist on using words such as “universal” when we are only talking about ourselves ON earth!!! What kinda of hubris ie required to make statements such as “most diverse anywhere” when we’ve been nowhere, yet!!! Seems that this person is describing “normalization” not scalability. If we accept the notions of scalability then we are by no means the least complex and therefore neither the most complex creatures!!!
When there are rules then we need exceptions to prove them. I like the exceptions more than the rules, to be honest.
exceptions, phenomenon transition zones & the like are where mystery becomes knowledge.
Can we use scaled-up San Francisco Poop Maps for NYC?
The general principal governs its own principles.
West and Kuhn are discussing *observable patterns* (laws) that orchestrate the movement from "simplicity to complexity" that can be applied across a broad spectrum of phenomena, ... all of which are predicated by *logic.* West claims a near 85% accuracy of predictability for how these scalable processes unfold, yet here we are in 2023 still discussing crazy things like "The Multiverse" and "Infinitely Existing Universes" which violate everything these two are talking about.
How can you "observe" any pattern that moves from simplicity to complexity with things that have purportedly _always existed?_ Logic dictates that any "simplicity to complexity" scenario must include an *origin point.*
... Prove me wrong!
Guys speculations arent linking in Universe evidence. Rambling gibberich. Wortheless phich proceedings.
RAPTURE444:360=1.23*MONAD
God is not plural man. God is singular. It is just that it is not good for God to be alone which is why God is Diverse. The Word is Love. You can take that to the bank.
How do you know there aren’t multiple gods ? How do you know they even if there is a singular god , the word is love ?
@@tonyatkinson2210 Richard Dawkins talked about a clock without a clock maker (the universe). It is a matter of personal belief. It would be odd if it was a clock without a clock maker..some supernatural intelligence/force being at work here..afaik.
@@fortynine3225 Dawkins has indeed written about the watchmaker analogy . It was originally posed by William Paley in 1802 , not Dawkins . Have you read Dawkins arguments regarding the analogy ?
@@tonyatkinson2210
this sums it up:
“the blind, unconscious, automatic process … is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life.” Since it has no mind, vision or foresight, “If it can be said to play the role of the watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.”
Unconscious is spontanious. Blind unconscious i am not sure about that. Looking at the universe and life all of that is getting more complex and more refined as time goes by. Our solar system and evolution on our planet are examples of that. I do see purpose. There could be something on the other side with a purpose afaik.
@@fortynine3225 Dawkins was specifically talking about biological evolution when he was writing The Blind Watchmaker , so I’m not sure why you added in the universe and the solar system .
Biological evolution is indeed blind , unconscious and automatic process but it’s gradual , not spontaneous .
The point is - evolution debunks paley’s watchmaker analogy . It demonstrates that exquisite complexy on levels much higher than clockwork watches can occur naturally without a designer .
Geoffrey's comment was almost OK until he dropped the "quantizable mathematizable dynamic" "sh-muck", you know...exactly like when you just started eating a very good delicious soup and from nowhere your nose decided instantly to blow a giant sneeze throwing absolutely all your 7-day accumulated mucus in it.
Brilliant
All Systems ... are Functions ... with purpose, PROCESSES, properties, form & design(structure/order)
The fundamental principle of science ... is ..... everything is a Function, interacting with functions, processing functions and/or being processed by functions.
And there is only evidence ... that a function ... is made by an Intelligence because of the INFORMATION every function possesses to exist & to function.
C'mon. Provide the evidence ... that Nature & Natural processes can make & operate the SIMPLEST physical Function 13.7 or 4 billion years ago ... or ... made by Man(Intelligence) today?
Science is a method (function) created by Man(function) to explain natural phenomena(functions) for this Universe (Function) composed of space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy which are all ....FUNCTIONS.
The Function, Intelligence & Mind Categories ... & .... the origin of Isolated Thermodynamic Systems( eg Universe) ... proves .... Universal Functions which is the hypothesis for Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago ....or ... any Machine Analogy used to explain Intelligent Design.
And everything clearly is a Function ... from the Quantum level to the Cosmic.
The Universe itself is an Isolated Thermodynamic System (Function) ... composed entirely of Functions.
The Theory of Everything is ... Universal Functions ... of ... everything is a Function. And thee is no evidence that Nature can make & operate a simple function.
"brain science"? 🤔
There is order in the universe because we can see it and make use of it and not chaos.